Category talk:Governors
This category could do with more specificity. Subcats for state govs, military govs, and govs general would be sufficient. TR 05:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC) :I'm inclined to agree though I think we'll have one or two outliers with just those three categories. I'll take a whack at it tomorrow; too late for me to want to start now. Turtle Fan 06:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC) ::Ok, I've created those three. Is "territorial governors" a worthwhile category, or does it overlap with other enough to be left off? TR 00:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC) :::Couldn't tell you offhand, but I don't think we have many territorial governors at all. Turtle Fan 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Outstanding Governors Let's see if we can do something with the Governors who have as of yet defied sub-categorization: Brown and Vahauka are satraps. I put the former in here because he's based on Governor Joe Brown of Georgia, but while the titles are analagous, they're not the same, any more than King Avram is a President. (In my defense, at the time these categories were used much more loosely.) With just the two of them, satrap would not appear to rate its own category. Burnett seems a clear-cut choice for Colonial Governors. His role seems very analogous to that of, say, the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario. (ML4E, aren't Lieutenant-Governors Governors-General writ small?) :What you say about Lt-Governors in OTL Canada is correct. However, in T2G the powers and authorities seem more analogous to US State Governors. Certainly MLK exercises Presidential powers unlike Canada's G-G. I would expand the narrative in "State Governors" to include Provinces of the NAU or Provinces more generally since some Latin American countries have Provinces rather than States with Governors in charge. ML4E 06:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC) ::Provincial Governors sounds like a very useful category indeed. It could also hold the satraps and Vourtzes. Everyone but Poindexter and maybe Lewis, actually--I assume Lewis was a territorial governor of some spot out west or other? We could even throw in the Fleetlords, since Atvar at one point said Fleetlords were de facto viceroys. (By the way, I find it very odd that the Race still hadn't gotten around to naming a Viceroy of Tosev 3 eighty-nine years and counting after the invasion began, and odder still that they seemed willing to tolerate a system in which two males of equal rank would hold overlapping authority, and often work at cross-purposes, on a seemingly permanent basis.) :::I'd been wondering about provincial governors. With Burnett being the only such governor, I didn't create it. I'd actually considered named the State Govs cat "State and Provincial Govs", but that seemed cumbersome. TR 23:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC) NAU G-G As for the G-G of NAU, the feeling I've gotten from the information we have up on the story (which is all the T2G exposure I've had) is that, conceptually, he's a three-in-one President, Prime Minister, and Governor-General, with each office shorne of a few defining characteristics as we would know them to let it mesh more easily with the other two. Turtle Fan 06:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC) :That's about right. I had recalled a PM of the NAU but haven't run into him yet and may be mixing it up with OTL Canada. Actually, there does seem to be a bit of an inconsistency with MLK in that he was appointed by Charles III and yet Charles is a constitutional monarch who reigns but not rules. Given MLK's executive powers, this doesn't seem entirely reasonable since a G-G's power is delegated from the monarch. ML4E 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ::Perhaps he's a constitutional monarch with a meaningful role to play in the process, like the Kaiser in the Kaiserreich. Alternately, maybe he appointed MLK in the same way that the Queen appoints your governors-general: the formality goes through her, but in practice she does as she's told. Turtle Fan 07:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :::It may well be but my point is OTL Canadian G-G has only a symbolic role since that is the role of the Queen and not an executive one. The book is clear that Charles leaves the running of the Empire to "politicos" like MLK and presumably the British PM while he has a more symbolic leadership role. ML4E 23:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :::Doesn't MLK make some remark about the voters' opinion, too? TR 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ::::He and Burnett both express concerns over voters' opinions and act like elected officials. Burnett may be elected like a US State governor although its not stated in the book. State parliaments are mentioned so each would have a state equivalent of a prime minister (premier in OTL Canada) and we have the Chairman of the NAU Tory Party accompany MLK to New Liverpool when the painting is stolen. He acts like a party leader even though there is no indication he is elected to a NAU parliament. ML4E 23:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :::::An Inconsistency as pertains to MLK? The description of his office sounds like voters shouldn't matter, just keeping the king happy (unless the king polls the NAU for his G-G, I guess). TR 23:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::My point is he has executive powers that the king doesn't. He is like an OTL PM in that he is head of government while the king is head of state. As a G-G he would have executive powers only if the king does. Maybe I'm just being too pedantic though. ML4E 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::Perhaps the G-G position is appointed but shares power with an elected NAU-wide parliament. So MLK needs to concern himself with parliamentary election results like a POTUS needs to worry about midterm Congressional elections, and also like a Pres, knows that his conduct in office will reflect on his allies who are up for (re)election. It may even be that, as in Canada, the PM (or maybe the Government party) tells the king who they want as G-G and he goes along with whomever they request, so if the Tories fall, their successors as the Government will toss King out and replace him with one of their own. That's how I'd retcon it, anyway, if I had to. Turtle Fan 03:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::::The power sharing is certainly implied in the book. It could also be that the G-G is appointed on the advise of the PM although Bushell and Stanley talk about it as though it was Charles who made the decision. This is why I haven't written anything in the Inconsistencies article. Instead, I'm going to wait until I have reread the book. Incidentally, the G-G in Canada doesn't change with governments. The G-G is appointed for a term of about five years (not fixed but set by convention). The current one was appointed on the advise of Paul Martin in 2005 and didn't change with the election of Steven Harper. ML4E 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC) :::::::::That much I knew, but it might be different if the G-G had real power. Or maybe a Parliamentary term is long enough that the next PM will be the one in charge of "advising" Charles and King wants to make sure it's a friend of his. :::::::::As for Charles making the final decision, we don't know what sort of preliminaries he has to go through. Maybe the Parliament or PM screens a number of candidates and submits two or three finalists to London. There's some precedent for that in some elected governments. Turtle Fan 19:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Videssos Govs What was Lewis governor of? This is the first I've heard of it. :Louisiana Territory. With Lewis, Poindexter and Fremont (governor of Arizona Territory), we may want to revisit territorial governors. TR 23:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Poindexter, as Territorial Governor, seems like an odd cross between State Governor and Colonial Governor. Vourtzes--My experience with Videssos is limited to the Krispos trilogy, and nothing in there shed much light on Videssian governorships. There was the fat general whose name escapes me at the moment who became Governor of Kubrat. He was a military governor. Appropos of nothing. Turtle Fan 05:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC) :Perhaps Videssian governors will earn their own category with time? TR 23:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC) ::That would be mixing nationality with occupation. Something we try to avoid: Remember ML4E's recent contemplation of a Royal Marines category? Videssian isn't a political system. If we wanted that, we'd need to chuck the current set-up and replace it with American governors, British governors, et cetera. ::Also, given how slowly the Videssos-verse has been growing throughout the 2000s, I would't want to place a bet on the proposition that a whole bunch of heretofore unannounced Videssian projects are right around the corner. Turtle Fan 07:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :::I meant that Videssos is perhaps the least catologued of all of HT's projects. There are roughly 11 novels and 3 short stories, and the category is very small compared with others. If we get more development of that area, then maybe some option will present itself. TR 15:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ::::I think it's twelve novels. ::::Very likely you're right. I thought about doing some articles after I read Krispos but those books seem to have been covered well enough by some predecessor of ours or other. As for the rest of the series, what we have has always sufficed for my needs, not that those are terribly great. I agree that they never seem to have gotten the full treatment that we've given to series like TL-191 or Atlantis. Turtle Fan 18:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :::Just a consequence of being older works. Worldwar is strong, but nothing compared to 191, which is stronger in the SE section than earlier sections, etc. TR 19:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ::::Also, all the regulars seem to have a strong AH bent. I, for instance, have been willing to go back and catalog the shit out of old AH books I've read like RB, but not for fantasy works such as Gerin the Fox or The Opening of the World. Fantasies that have a very strong historical fiction feel, like Derlavai and Detina, end up somewhere in the middle. I don't think we can entirely call that coincidence. ::::On the other hand, we've never really done anything with Fort Pillow; the only full-length FP article of which I can think that contains only FP references is Benjamin Wade. And even he picked up some M&S by and by. Turtle Fan 22:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Fort Pillow :::::I foresee going back to FP soon enough. I know exactly where my copy is. TR 22:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC) ::::::That's a good sign. It's a pleasant read; felt incomplete, though. HT does well with straight hi-fi, I found myself wishing he'd do a Civil War project of similar scope to, say, WBtP. The Shaaras did a great job with the Eastern Theater, but there's really no work on the West to compare. And at any rate, HT threw out so many references to events that didn't take place in the book that, even though he can reasonably expect that the average reader of FP would know what most of them meant without further explanation, it had the feel of a book that was never meant to stand alone. Turtle Fan 22:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC) CS Governors, US Territory Governors US Territory Governors: Brigham Young, John C. Frémont, Joseph Poindexter, and possibly others. CS State Governors: William Smith, Zebulon Vance, Huey Long, Wright Patman, and there might be a few more. Some of these are categorised within individual states. That the state-categorised ones are listed in subsets of "State Governors of US States" is a bit problematic. I just thought I'd throw these ideas out there.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 22:47, February 7, 2018 (UTC) :The CS state govs is slightly larger than I realized. Smith and Patman are in states that have their own sub-cats. Vance and Long are not. A clean way to handle this is probably to create a CS State Govs general cat, and then double cat Smith and Patman. TR (talk) 23:45, February 7, 2018 (UTC) :EDIT: No, wait, there isn't a Gov of VA ATL category, so only Patman would be double-catted. TR (talk) 23:47, February 7, 2018 (UTC) ::I am unclear as to what should be done. TR proposes that a CS Governors cat be created but he also edited the US Gov (Fic) to include CS governors. Personally I would prefer not to mix the two together if we have enough to create a separate CS Govs cat. ML4E (talk) 21:57, February 8, 2018 (UTC) :::It's possible that we don't have enough CS Govs to make a separate cat worthwhile.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 22:04, February 8, 2018 (UTC) :::You gave four examples above. ML4E (talk) 22:07, February 8, 2018 (UTC) ::::We can undo my edits. ::::Patman's going to be the problem. We can (barely) justify a general CS Govs category. However, we also have a Gov of Tex Fictional category. Wright Patman would have to be both a CS Gov and a Tex ATL gov. I don't see much value in keeping him out of the Texas cat, even though Gov of Tex is also a sub-sub-cat of US Govs. That would be more confusing than just doing the double categorization. TR (talk) 22:08, February 8, 2018 (UTC)